Michael's Enterprises of Virgi v. Branch Bank and Trust Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00829-REP,14-30611-KRH,14-03134-KRH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999789679].. [15-1807]

Appeal: 15-1807

Doc: 30

Filed: 04/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1807

In Re:

MICHAEL’S ENTERPRISES OF VIRGINIA, INC.,
Debtor.

--------------------------------------MICHAEL’S ENTERPRISES OF VIRGINIA, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00829-REP; 14-30611-KRH; 14-03134-KRH)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Decided:

April 6, 2016

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Robert Arzt, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Trevor B.
Reid, Stephen E. Scarce, Meredith L. Yoder, PARKER, POLLARD,
WILTON & PEADEN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal: 15-1807

Doc: 30

Filed: 04/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1807

Doc: 30

Filed: 04/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael’s Enterprises of Virginia, Inc., appeals from the
district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
imposing sanctions upon it, its president/sole shareholder, and
its

attorney

after

determining

that

Michael’s

petition was filed for an improper purpose.

bankruptcy

We have reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we find no
abuse

of

discretion

sanctions.
1997).

by

the

bankruptcy

court

in

imposing

See In re Weiss, 111 F.3d 1159, 1169 (4th Cir.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district

court. *

Michael’s

Enters.

of

Va.,

Inc.

v.

Branch

Banking & Trust Co., No. 3:14-cv-00829-REP (E.D. Va. June 19,
2015).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

*

In making this determination, we do not rely upon the
bankruptcy court’s analysis as to when a transfer occurred.

3